« We're Back!
Main
Why Christopher Heard is Not a Creationist »
November 22, 2005
Does the Iraqi Leadership and the Bush Administration Support the Murtha Proposal for Withdrawal?
AMERICABlog has a post headed "Iraqi leaders adopt Murtha proposal for withdrawal." And the Guardian article on which the post is based seems to imply this same thing. I have no doubt that a significant portion of Iraqi leadership wants us out as soon as possible. However, I see something else in this.
But first, here are Murtha and the Iraqi leadership's positions.
On November 17, 2005, Congressman John Murtha said,
Staying the course in Iraq is not an option or a policy. I believe we must begin discussions for an immediate re-deployment of U.S. forces from Iraq. I believe it can be accomplished in as little as six months but it must be consistent with the safety of U.S. troops. We must insist that the Iraqis step up and seize their own destiny.[snip]
The Iraqis are a smart and proud people. They must take control of their country. My plan motivates the Iraqis to take control, sooner rather than later.
Here is what the Guardian says the Iraqi leader agreed to,
The participants in Cairo agreed to "calling for the withdrawal of foreign troops according to a timetable, through putting in place an immediate national program to rebuild the armed forces ... control the borders and the security situation'' and end terror attacks.
They were meeting in Cairo "at a preparatory reconciliation conference under the auspices of the Arab League."
Actually, the two positions are not quite the same and the Iraqi's had another item that Murtha didn't and never would mention,
Though resistance is a legitimate right for all people, terrorism does not represent resistance. Therefore, we condemn terrorism and acts of violence, killing and kidnapping targeting Iraqi citizens and humanitarian, civil, government institutions, national resources and houses of worships.
The final communique's attempt to define terrorism omitted any reference to attacks against U.S. or Iraqi forces. Delegates from across the political and religious spectrum said the omission was intentional.
Putting this last and telling item aside, the Guardian article explains the reason for the meeting.
The gathering was part of a U.S.-backed league attempt to bring the communities closer together and assure Sunni Arab participation in a political process now dominated by Iraq's Shiite majority and large Kurdish minority.
I focus on the words, "US backed." I believe the Administration is looking for what was called during the Vietnam days "peace with honor." By itself, the Murtha plan would bring peace, at least for the US, but there would be no honor. If the Iraqis ask for the same thing, there is the appearance of peace and honor. I'm not really claiming the wording of the final communiqué was drafted or even approved by the Bush Administration. I am claiming that they are very likely happy about it. I would also claim that the Administration's chance in position on Murtha from treasonous traitor to mistaken hero is driven by their seeing a way out without having to admit to any mistake. It will be interesting to see Administration reaction.
Posted by Duane Smith at November 22, 2005 9:22 AM | Read more on Current Events |
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.telecomtally.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/1457
Comments
Sorry, comments are closed for this post.
Send me an email if it is important.